If
popular culture results in part from the
appropriation of media-originated culture, the
founders and users of files-sharing sites could
be considered genuine creators of popular
culture, and as such, genuine rebels since
appropriating media-culture would entail clashes
with the dominant culture. Indeed, the mere
exchange or duplication of sounds or images is
already a breach in the contract between the
entertainment industry and consumers since
copyright laws stipulate that buying music or
images is not tantamount to owning them; the
price paid only entails the right to use them
privately. Furthermore,
the images and sounds are often modified and
distorted on numerous "fanfic" sites
through parodic, satirical or pornographic
variations and sequels, in clear opposition to
what the dominant media culture can accept.
Interestingly, European and American youths
display on this issue a marked difference. Both
the users and creators of the sites are mostly
Americans, which can only be partly accounted
for by the larger number of computers in the
United States and the greater familiarity of its
youth with technology. If these
sites do represent an appropriation by the young
of media culture, their origin and zone of
expansion must logically be the country where
most of this culture is produced. Whatever the
excitement generated by American mass culture in
Europe, it remains in these countries an
outsider product, competing with indigenous
cultural forms, so that the need for
reappropriation is not felt with the same
urgency.

How
profound are these changes, though? Have we
really entered "the age of the
consumer", as some (e.g., Hilary Rosen)
would have it? And if so, with what consequences?
What does the newly acquired power of young
consumers consist of? How are they going to use
it and to what end? My argument is that it is a
mistake to consider these sites as a form of
resistance, or their users as the spearhead of a
revolt against corporate America. Their
rebellious aura is in great part triggered by a
mere nostalgic association with the mythical,
glamorous subversiveness of the 1960s. "The
money economy is immoral, based totally on power
and manipulation, offending the natural exchange
between human beings. Capitalism
is stealing": Jerry Rubin's words would
find little echo on today's campuses (43). If a
flock of Fannings and Greenes seem to disrupt
the system and introduce disorder into the
otherwise smooth functioning of the culture
industry, they also appear as young
entrepreneurs eager to capitalize on their
mediatic fame.

They may be difficult to distinguish
from the ordinary users of their sites, living
the same life, eating the same food, playing the
same games, wearing the same clothes, yet their
sudden fame has turned them into aspiring
capitalists; and "a hip capitalist remains
a pig capitalist", to quote Rubin again
(44). Even if the latest project of Gnutella's
founder, Justin Frankelis, is to strip ads out
of AOL Instant Messenger, most entrepreneurs are
moving in the opposite direction.

Thus, last October, Napster signed a comfortable
deal with Bertelsmann, and Scour is also about
to reach an agreement with the industry. As Ian
Clark put it, "it stands to reason that the
political definition [of the sites] may fade,
just as much of the Net's initial idealism gave
way to commercial practises and became a
mainstream medium, no longer a 'guerilla
technology'", which Gen Kan of Gnutella
confirms when describing the goals of his site:
"this is not an effort to avoid corporate
influence but to oversee it"10.

What is particularly interesting is how these
young men have been turned into symbols of
revolt, how what are simply consumer-friendly
sites are presented as the most subversive
technology of the decade. This is extremely
revealing of our society's need for archetypal,
polarized clashes. Regular doses of
ideologically enhanced issues, particularly of
the small-versus-big type, are required to
restore social cohesion through cathartic
struggles. Because unlike the previous systems
of production, the world of the New Economy is
not ruled by a specific class with vested
interests, polarization has become more
problematic, hence the resort to artificially
sustained oppositions. Typically, the postmodern
causes of our rebellions have become consumption
and the businesses that provide it.